Transcript of Trump Witness Quickly Collapses under Cross-Exam by Dems New

A top Trump official was stunned into silence during a congressional hearing earlier. Democratic Congresswoman AOC was cross-examining EPA head Lee Zeldin, and she exposed that he was having private meetings with Bayer and other companies in order to promote glyphosate. And he walked right into the trap that AOC set. Watch as she exposed how his EPA, how Trump's EPA, was engaged in this collusive relation relationship with big corporations in order to promote glyphosate. Let's play this clip.

Administrator Zeldin, have you ever participated in a meeting with Bayer where you discussed the legal or litigation issues that the company was facing?

No, I never did. Okay, I have, um, my meeting with them was very brief and that topic did not come up.

All right, I do, uh, are you aware of any outreach that they would have in your agency about this?

I could say that I directly had a brief meeting.

Okay.

But it was a brief meet and greet, and that topic did not come up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to submit EPA visitor logs from July 7th, 2025 to the committee.

Without objection, so ordered.

And you're certain they didn't bring up anything regarding your work?

I'm telling you, 100%. Absolutely. I, I, I— maybe there was some brainstorming that was done beforehand of potential topics.

Are you aware of any—

that topic was not brought up.

Are you aware of anything brought up to, um, any members of your staff or your team?

I, I am not aware of that, no.

Okay. Um, I would like to submit to the record some, uh, internal emails from the EPA that I have acquired via a Freedom of Information Act submission.

Without objection, sir. Order.

We have, uh, documentation here, um, emails from your senior advisor for agriculture and rural affairs saying that you were meeting with the Bayer CEO last year.

They—

he said in these emails that they will be bringing up some legal/judicial issues. More specifically, in this internal email in your EPA, It says that Bayer was specifically seeking to and discussing Supreme Court action. It will want an update on EPA's regulatory review, and that interestingly, Bayer will provide a small thanks for updating the glyphosate webpage from the EPA and work on Maha. Do you have any idea what they might have been referring to in this email?

Well, first off, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, it's possible that the team was doing brainstorming of potential topics.

Okay.

Wow, powerful indeed. Next, I want to share with you Democratic Congressmember Menéndez cross-examining Zeldin here and saying, you know, Donald Trump asked the oil and gas industry for $1 billion in exchange for rollbacks from the EPA. So you're just delivering on that. You're just doing the favors to the big gas and oil companies, right? Play this clip.

Because you've said other crazy stuff. You said other stuff, crazy stuff today. Okay. You don't want the Biden administration— that the Biden administration— I mean, are you going to do anything at some point?

I mean, you ask a question.

How many instances do you ask a question?

Give me an opportunity to answer.

Because I moved on and you've done this numerous times. So, listen, I just want to ask you a question. You've said that the Biden administration with the IRA had more funds than the EPA knew how to spend. And there was waste, fraud, and abuse.

Right.

And this was going out to people that were in the Biden orbit. You had said that earlier. Yet I'm curious if you have any issue with the fact that during the 2024 campaign, the president asked the oil and gas industry for $1 billion in exchange for supporting these rollbacks that the EPA is administering now. Is that at all an issue for you that the president said to the oil and gas industry, give me $1 billion and I will do your work? Is that not the work that the EPA is doing?

I don't know. Are you actually asking questions?

I'm asking a question. Are you going to give an answer?

I'm going to start an answer and then you're going to cut me off. Is that how this works?

All right.

Well, if that's going to be the case, I have another thing for for you. What do you think about the $220 million ad campaign that Secretary Noem had with the DHS that went directly— that went directly to Trump? I'm talking— that went to Trump operatives. Did you speak out against that as a member of the administration?

About the fact that he was giving $500,000 to former Obama and Biden officials? How about the conflicts of interest during the Biden EPA that you don't want to—

All right, what about in the Trump administration? If you want— if you want to talk about the Biden administration, talk about the Trump administration.

You're a part of the administration and you don't want to say that Secretary Noem was wrong.

Say that Secretary Noh was wrong. You're not going to.

You don't want to work with the agency, Mr. Zeldin.

Thank you.

Mr. Zeldin is here to talk about the EPA, not other matters.

At the same time, Biden administration, we can ask him about things.

If it's related to the EPA, and you certainly can ask, but, but he also has a right to answer the question. So let's try to be a little more civil on All parts.

Gentlemen.

Next, you had Congressmember Landsman cross-examining Lee Zeldin. Let's play this clip.

EPA budget. Just in sort of pulling back a little bit over the course of the last 14 months, there's— you all pushed for a massive spending bill, $4.5 trillion. Most of it went to tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the super wealthy. You added trillions of dollars to the debt, cut health care by nearly $1 trillion, and now you are going to cut the EPA by 50%. You were a member of Congress. Would you have supported all of this as a member of Congress?

The working families tax cut? I absolutely would have voted yes. And as I'm hearing from Americans across the country, they're really happy to get a lot more back in their tax return. And I would say that on behalf of all those Americans who have shared that, while I can share that feedback with President Trump, I'd also say to the Republicans on this committee who voted for it, thank you for doing your part, understanding the economic concerns of Americans across this country.

And you don't spend a lot of time— Mr. Zahn, you don't spend a lot of time with people right there. That really isn't true. No one's really saying thank you for cutting their health care, for adding trillions.

That shows how out of touch you are, that you believe that Americans are not happy to get more back in their tax return.

No, you don't talk to folks. There's no— like, I visited all 50 states in my first time, and people come up to you and they say, thank you so much for spending trillions of dollars on the super wealthy and cutting our health care. That's what they tell you.

No, they don't repeat your soundbite.

And they're just desperately asking you to shift all this money.

We appreciate having more money in our wallet. All this money back to afford to heat our home and fill up our gas tank. So have our groceries.

And so that's what they say.

So that's what they say. They don't repeat.

They don't. They don't say that. They absolutely don't. They're all members of Congress.

They're grateful for having more back in their tax return. No, they're positioned.

That shows how many dollars you're shifting money to the states. So this is, this is Russ Vought, right? He's the head of OMB. He sets the policy for all of you. He came to you and said, I got to cut your budget by 50%. The EPA, it's there to protect the environment and Americans. And you just say, okay, is that how it works? Like, because this is Russ Vought, who was the architect, one of the key architects of Project 2025, which was we're going to decimate the federal government, shift the cost burden back to states, and we'll free up all this money for tax cuts for the super wealthy. And you were like, okay, that's fine.

No, that is not what happened.

So Russ doesn't make this call.

The budget that I'm here before Congress is a budget that I support, that I take responsibility for crafting.

Well, I suspect he is glad to hear.

I'm sure he's—

I'm sure he's happy with the budget that we—

that he crafted.

But that's not true.

It is true.

Okay. Well, you're entitled to your own version of—

And then you have Congressmember Elkin Claus from Massachusetts saying, How are we going to get rid of the PFAS in municipal water supplies with 90% fewer dollars? How are you going to get rid of all of these agents in the water, these pollutants in the water, these things that are causing lots of sickness, if you've just gutted the entire, uh, investment in order to make the supply better? Here, play this clip.

You're proposing to cut again this cycle 90% I've now talked to your top staffers. I've talked to the top technologists. The technology isn't there. So how do we get rid of PFAS in municipal water supplies? You agree it's a problem. I agree it's a problem. It affects your state. It affects my state with 90% fewer dollars.

So it's your position that there's no PFAS destruction technologies that merit any conversation here? There's tons.

What I am saying is at the point of production, yes. For dredge at landfills, yes. I'm talking about municipal water supplies to get to 4 to 8 parts per trillion. I mean, it was your staff and the top technologists. They were in my office. They were talking about this.

It isn't there.

So if you are a town in New York right now, one of the towns that you championed when you were a congressman for PFAS dollars, what are they going to do with 90% fewer dollars to get rid of PFAS?

Well, first off, uh, as I referenced earlier, what we don't do in our proposed budget is factor in how much you are going to want to raid the SRF for earmarks. That's a decision for you to decide to make. Now, I'm not weighing in on the merits, and I'm going to opine on what you choose to advocate for your district on, but at the same time, the president's FY27 budget proposal is not going to propose your earmarks for you. We're also not—

wait, your plan— your EPA plan for clean water is to hope that members of Congress—

I'm not hoping that members of Congress are going to raid it. I know that members of Congress are going to raid it, and they've been doing it for a long time. There's a reason why the revolving fund is not revolving, is because there are members who take money out of the revolving fund and they give it as earmarks to members of their district. And by the way, there are a lot of fantastic examples of how members, I'm sure, of this committee have secured these earmarks for their district. The problem is I've gotten about $40 million back from my revolving fund anymore for clean water. I, I said, you want it to revolve, you can make sure it's properly funded by getting rid of the congressional directed spending. If Congress chooses not to, Administrator, they're going to continue to have this, this problem.

You're in charge of the EPA budget. You're not in charge of earmarks. And hope is not a strategy.

Next, you have Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. Watch as he just tries to ask a very simple question. And Zeldin has no answer at all. Play this clip.

Here's the thing, though. Your agency created a website specifically to invite companies to fast-track waiver requests. And a FOIA request shows that the company spoke with your staff to coordinate this request. This wasn't just like something for the president— that the president did. Your EPA may not be granting the exemptions, but you went through great lengths to make sure that that was facilitated. So, I mean, this is a mile away from a school. This thing is spewing out 12 tons of lead every single year. The bag cost $60 million. Mr. Zeldin, can I get a commitment from you to fix this? Can you go to the president and say, hey, we made a mistake? I mean, this, this was not— companies have responsibilities in these communities. Can I get a commitment from you to work with my office, work with the president to undo this?

Just for my own background, because this first time we're talking about it, do you know if anyone from your team raised this to ours before now, or is this the first time that we're engaging on this topic?

Well, it's the first time we are engaged. We are, and we've engaged in other topics, plenty of topics. This is a serious issue for the community in Miami.

I, I hope that, um, at this point, after all of the many other topics that you've engaged us with that we've been able to very successfully work together on, I'll just, I'll just tell you, my role has been on these exemptions to receive and transmit pursuant to the statute. If there's something specific beyond that, you know, it merits a follow-up conversation. But it's not familiar that—

it wasn't—

I'm not aware of you.

From what we know, wasn't just receive. The website was set up. There was coordination with your staff. You provide no recommendation to the White House on this at all?

I transmit and submit. I receive and transmit.

But your job is to look out for the health of the American people.

It's following the statute.

But how about the kids that go to that school and people that go to that church? I mean, I would love to have an opportunity to try to solve this problem. It's $60 million to a company that made $2.7 billion.

This administration—

I'm not saying you specifically. I'm saying this administration, the White House, put the profits of that company over the health of those children.

The only issue is, as I sit here, I don't have the— I would like to have the information about the company and the technology.

And we will. We will. We'll get to you about—

because I'm not— as I sit here, it's the first time that anyone has raised it.

We will, we will get you all the information.

Thank you.

And next, you have Democratic Senator Whitehouse, who just absolutely filets Lee Zeldin, Donald Trump's EPA administrator. Let's play it.

But the big winners getting to pollute for free are your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Is EPA looking at all at Florida's climate climate-driven insurance crisis.

So to be clear, everything about the $0.09, all you want to ask me is why $0.09 is less than $0.18. No, I just thought I'm understanding this.

You don't want to answer my question. I'll move on to the next one.

If I'm correct, fuel efficiency— all you want to know that $0.09 is less than $0.18. You don't actually talk about the issue.

You already answered that. Now you're just wasting my time.

Now everything other than $0.09 is less than $0.18 is wasting your time.

The cost of Americans' gasoline budgets, your own Regulatory impact analysis put the net loss to consumers at $180 billion, but with a minimum, minimum $580 billion bonus for Big Oil at the pump. All those billions go to your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Those are your numbers, Mr. Zeldin. You also made it easier to pollute with soot. Soot, which will cost Americans tens of billions in added healthcare costs, all to save about $600 million in compliance costs for your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. You stopped EPA even counting health harms in your cost-benefit analysis, didn't you?

I'm still stuck on the fact that all you're asking me so far about any of your numbers is less than 18.

You attacked the—

you want to talk about what an LCOE is? I get the time here.

I get to ask the questions. You attacked the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, potentially costing consumers $52 billion in lost energy savings, let alone the health benefits of cleaner air. But that $52 billion consumers lose will flow where? To your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. Ditto the Solar for All funding that you attacked, trying to strip Americans of $350 million per year in expected energy savings billions over time. Those loss savings go where? To your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors. You even set up a special polluter email address that gave polluters a drive-up window for exemptions from the Clean Air Act, helping them keep 70 polluting coal plants online. One estimate is that just 6 of those plants have already cost ratepayers an extra $230 million in costs. In less than one year. And indeed, one plant in Michigan has already cost Michiganders $600 million in excess health costs. That is money out of consumers' pockets and into the pockets of your fossil fuel polluters, Trump's big donors.

Can we talk about—

are you even tracking the consumer cost of those coal plants?

We're going to get to talk about math.

Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?

Oh, this is great. So I don't even know where to start with all the mess of that question.

Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those?

And costs are going down across the country. When you look at EPA's—

where, where are you tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?

When you look at EPA— are you kidding me? Coal plants even staying open? You think that the math is it's better for West Virginia if you coal— if you close down their coal plants and put these people out of work and tell them to learn to code. According to you, in your mind, that's saving West Virginia.

Is raising—

is it saving them on energy?

We know it's raising costs.

Is it saving them on jobs?

You can talk across me all you like. You are raising costs.

Raising costs.

You're raising costs on purpose because the money that you get when you raise costs from consumers goes to Trump's big fossil fuel donors.

We don't close down coal. My time is up.

How about Congressmember Harder? I thought his cross-examination was pretty good as well. Let's play this clip.

Decisions that they EPA made under your leadership was to repeal higher mercury and air toxic standards. Uh, tell me a little bit about why you did that and specifically why you left out the health impacts in that analysis.

So you're referring to the 2024 mercury and air toxic standards. Uh, we kept in place the strict 2012 mercury and air toxic standards, uh, that were working. Uh, there was a targeted effort towards the end of the Biden administration through a number of rule tools to try to tell coal miners that they should learn to code and to try to make coal plants across this country shut down. Steam Electric ESG, Coal Combustion Residual, Clean Power Plan 2.0, the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxic Standards. Collectively, there were coal plants all across the entire country that were targeted for extinction because of it, and now they're able to stay open. Coal and natural gas, they provide these power plants—

Just to refocus specifically, Why did your analysis of the impacts of this repeal not include the health impacts to the populations that are going to bear this increased mercury pollution?

Oh, we absolutely, uh, consider, uh, the health impacts of mercury.

There was no quantified health impact in that analysis, am I mistaken?

We, uh, absolutely, um, value the, uh, the impact. The whole reason why we have mercury and air toxic standards in the first place is because of the health impacts of mercury and toxic standards.

So, but in the repeal, how much do you think it's actually going to— what are the health harms of this repeal?

Uh, it could be zero.

You think doubling the amount of mercury pollution in the air is going to lead to zero health harms?

Where did you get doubling from?

That's the impact of the repeal.

Where'd you get it from?

The 2024 to the 2020-2012 standards. You mentioned that you're going back to the 2020.

Where's your math from? Here we go. I'm not Secretary Kennedy. I watched your hearing with him last week.

It is 70% higher. The standards from 2024 are 70% higher than the standards from 2012.

So it is your position as I sit here today, we're about to do this because you're going to regret it. We're about to do this where your position is that we are doubling the amount of mercury.

That you are allowing 70% higher mercury standards.

Yeah.

No. So I'm allowing 70%. Now I'm saying— now you're saying—

repeal the standard that had 70% stricter standards. The 2024 standard than the 2012 standard.

So the nationwide—

I don't understand the math behind this.

I'm confused. Here we go. The nationwide tons of mercury emissions from coal plants, if the MATS 2024 was still in place from 2028 to 2037, was 33.2. The nationwide tons of mercury emissions from coal plants if mercury air toxic standards was repealed from 2028 to 2037 is 39.3. At most, that's assuming that no coal plant at all will voluntarily take any action whatsoever to install any control devices. So at most, the math ends up being 15.5 to 18.3%, which is significantly less than double.

The estimates that I've seen are as much as 1,500 additional pounds of mercury in the air.

Rip it up, have your dog pee on it. It's just not accurate.

And you saw this exchange between Democratic Senator Padilla and EPA Secretary Zeldin. Let's play this clip.

When you came in, you promised the cleanest air in history. Do you believe the air in Los Angeles, the air across the country, is cleaner than when this administration started?

Yes, the— I've seen over the course of—

with—

now, just to remind you, Lee Zeldin, who's the head of the EPA, He says that climate change is a hoax and doesn't exist. Here, play this clip.

Lee, I can't believe just years when everybody would say climate change was a third rail.

Don't bring it up.

The president says it is a hoax.

It is a con job.

Where do you fall on this?

The president is absolutely right. And we've seen it in the name of climate change, these left-wing policies willing to cause extreme economic pain for people who can least afford it. We've seen in the name of climate justice grants to, you know, $50 million to Climate Justice Alliance. They say the Climate justice runs through a free Palestine. In the name of environmental justice, they will have tens of billions of dollars go to their well-connected left-wing former Obama and Biden officials and Democratic donors rather than directly towards environmental remediation. And they're willing to suffocate out entire sectors of our energy economy, uh, and that, that caused a loss of jobs, higher energy costs So President Trump is absolutely right. It's something that with eyes wide open, the Trump mandate is being implemented all year long at the Trump EPA and across the Trump administration. And the rest of the world is taking notice because they're having some of the same problems in their own country.

And in order to really get that job, he had to be this Trump MAGA sycophant. Here he was with Don Jr. in 2024 in order to try to prove his loyalty to Donald Trump. Let's play this clip.

So we're clear because they're going to start this one. It's like, you know, they'll use, you know, the fact that there's basically no majority in the House. There's nothing, you know, they're going to use that and they're going to try to flip it like, oh, no, we could have given you something if you rolled over and everything. This, this bill that I'm reading about now, this Lankford bill, and this is a Republican senator agreeing with Chuck Schumer, 5,000 illegal immigrants a day, every day, forever.

And I'll remind you of this. I thought great moment earlier this week. Where King Charles was calling out the importance of respecting our climate, our shared climate in the world. And then the C-SPAN camera goes right to Lee Zeldin, who doesn't believe in climate change at all, who's the head of the EPA. Here, play this clip.

As we celebrate the beauty that surrounds us, our generation must decide how to address the collapse of of critical natural systems, which threatens far more than the harmony and essential diversity of nature. We ignore at our peril the fact that these natural systems, in other words, nature's own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security.

There you have it, folks. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Powerful cross-exams. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at MidasPlus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com.